Friday Update, Q&A - December 23, 2011

[luthier]

Hey folks,

I see that these answers led some folks here, and most of the folks on my favorite sukhoi.ru, to read between the lines and see my answers to specific questions as indications of larger-scale abandonment of the project.

That's not the case at all.

I answered specific questions and didn't touch on the larger effort. It remains the same. Sped up graphics, launcher errors, improved FM, etc, all of that is in progress as previously stated.

We are trying to pull off a very difficult balancing act with developing a new game and supporting an old one at the same time. Pretty much no one does that. Most large developers simply release games, support them for a month at the most, and then switch to new paid content regardless of the state of the game. We are however trying not only to patch up major issues, we're working on improving things that generally work - and we're doing that for free seven months after release. We are doing that by trying to parallel tasks as much as possible and improving CoD while developing a sequel.

That is however simply not possible with some features. In some cases that's a question of limited resources. We cannot make a new flyable for CoD because that means one less flyable for the sequel. With other tasks it's simply a matter of time. Some of the changes we're making are so sweeping, they're scheduled to be completed very close to the sequel's ship date. The animation for example is such a huge task with so many facets that we can't just take it, turn it into a half a gig patch, and release it for CoD a month before the release of the sequel.

And to make sure to drive my main point across. We are still working on improving CoD. No one's abandoned it. There will be patches. My answers about things in the sequel were meant for those specific features. Please don't try to read between the lines!

[Insuber]

much clearer now Luthier. Thank you for stopping our speculations.

[slm]

Originally Posted by luthier

We are trying to pull off a very difficult balancing act with developing a new game and supporting an old one at the same time. Pretty much no one does that. Most large developers simply release games, support them for a month at the most, and then switch to new paid content regardless of the state of the game. We are however trying not only to patch up major issues, we're working on improving things that generally work - and we're doing that for free seven months after release. We are doing that by trying to parallel tasks as much as possible and improving CoD while developing a sequel.

That is however simply not possible with some features. In some cases that's a question of limited resources. We cannot make a new flyable for CoD because that means one less flyable for the sequel. With other tasks it's simply a matter of time

One way of saving resources might be just dropping support of 32-bit operating systems. When I was using CoD in WinXP I had quite a few serious problems, like the game freezing in multiplayer. Most of those seem to be gone now. Probably because 64-bit Windows7 allows using more memory.

[IceFire]

Thanks for the update!

Good to know how things are progressing. I've been hesitant to pick up the game so far but in the new year I fully intend to. It sounds like things are coming together for both Cliffs of Dover and the sequel. IL-2 was a bit of a troubled release too and Forgotten Battles really hammered things in to a great simulation as have all of the additions since then. If Battle of Moscow rights things and keeps us rolling along with the great content already in Cliffs plus enhancements then I think we're going to be in great shape!

In a few years we'll be back to the point where one online server can serve multiple scenarios and theaters... and consequently and all sorts of fun! That's what I'm looking forward to.

[addman]

Originally Posted by slm

One way of saving resources might be just dropping support of 32-bit operating systems. When I was using CoD in WinXP I had quite a few serious problems, like the game freezing in multiplayer. Most of those seem to be gone now. Probably because 64-bit Windows7 allows using more memory.

The game exe is still only 32-bit. It has more to do with Windows XP and/or Directx 9. Anywho, the new graphics engine will probably work better on both platforms.

[slm]

Originally Posted by addman

The game exe is still only 32-bit. It has more to do with Windows XP and/or Directx 9. Anywho, the new graphics engine will probably work better on both platforms.

Whatever the reason is, I just don't see these serious problems anymore in Windows7. If the development team is currently using lots of effort to support many operating systems and versions of DirectX, maybe they could consider increasing game's minimum requirements in order to speed up development - for BattleOfMoscow? CoD was supposed to work in WinXP, but I'm not so sure if this will ever really happen.

[csThor]

Hello Ilya!

You have known about me for a few years now and you know the pedantry I can descend into when it comes to certain facts. But despite my very own pet issues I do try to keep a look at the "larger picture" and it is indeed rather dark ATM - and that's saying something. I'm usually no pessimist and I am not a hater, but recently things have taken a turn that does make me doubt the validity of some business decisions and company policies.

Originally Posted by luthier

I answered specific questions and didn't touch on the larger effort. It remains the same. Sped up graphics, launcher errors, improved FM, etc, all of that is in progress as previously stated.

But ... You had to know a but was coming, we all have heard it from miles and miles away. ... many of these fixes are tied in to "larger changes". Your own words. In the same statement you were talking about "features". Problem is - how are people supposed to discern what is a change and what is a feature (postponed to the sequel) when any kind of information is either cryptically short or a state secret? You know I did send you the Luftwaffe unit fixes first time last April. I even tried five or six different ways of getting them to you. Reaction? Nada, niente, none, zilch. That, too, is one of the things I don't understand ... the total silence. Both to people who did produce stuff for CloD or who were willing to help and to the community as a whole. Communication disaster is the phrase I've heard a few times already.

Originally Posted by luthier

We are trying to pull off a very difficult balancing act with developing a new game and supporting an old one at the same time. Pretty much no one does that. Most large developers simply release games, support them for a month at the most, and then switch to new paid content regardless of the state of the game. We are however trying not only to patch up major issues, we're working on improving things that generally work - and we're doing that for free seven months after release. We are doing that by trying to parallel tasks as much as possible and improving CoD while developing a sequel.

That is however simply not possible with some features. In some cases that's a question of limited resources. We cannot make a new flyable for CoD because that means one less flyable for the sequel. With other tasks it's simply a matter of time. Some of the changes we're making are so sweeping, they're scheduled to be completed very close to the sequel's ship date. The animation for example is such a huge task with so many facets that we can't just take it, turn it into a half a gig patch, and release it for CoD a month before the release of the sequel.

And here we seem to disagree on a very fundamental level, Ilya. I do not know the business realities of Maddox Games nor do I wish to know, but in my book CloD is at the moment nothing more than an unfinished game engine which is about to be rewritten. It's not a full game, the offline part is too minimal and too incomplete to provide much offline entertainment and the online part is bugged with the crashes, the FMB is still "touchy" in a few areas (i.e. the weather controls) and even the Channel map has a few annoying bugs (i.e. the holes in the landscape). Right now CloD is - in my opinion - not more than an early Alpha. It runs but the content (apart from the aircraft) is not really there, yet.
So this is my impression of the state of things when you posted that certain "features" will be postponed until the sequel. Even for me, and I am not short of a €, this does a lot to increase the WTF? state of mind I'm finding myself in WRT CloD. Are you seriously expecting the customers just to shrug and swallow that they'll have to pay yet another full game price just to get features which were promised for Clod (some features which I personally regard as vital for any game like a decent campaign mode)? Are you really expecting us to shrug off the total omission of the Royal Navy?

My point is that switching full-throttle to the production of the sequel, given the way things are ATM, is indeed quite a slap into the face of customers who have bought the product in good faith, customers who were looking for a good representation of the Battle of Britain with all its phases.

[satchenko]

[SYN_Repent]

Originally Posted by csThor

Hello Ilya!

You have known about me for a few years now and you know the pedantry I can descend into when it comes to certain facts. But despite my very own pet issues I do try to keep a look at the "larger picture" and it is indeed rather dark ATM - and that's saying something. I'm usually no pessimist and I am not a hater, but recently things have taken a turn that does make me doubt the validity of some business decisions and company policies.



But ... You had to know a but was coming, we all have heard it from miles and miles away. ... many of these fixes are tied in to "larger changes". Your own words. In the same statement you were talking about "features". Problem is - how are people supposed to discern what is a change and what is a feature (postponed to the sequel) when any kind of information is either cryptically short or a state secret? You know I did send you the Luftwaffe unit fixes first time last April. I even tried five or six different ways of getting them to you. Reaction? Nada, niente, none, zilch. That, too, is one of the things I don't understand ... the total silence. Both to people who did produce stuff for CloD or who were willing to help and to the community as a whole. Communication disaster is the phrase I've heard a few times already.



And here we seem to disagree on a very fundamental level, Ilya. I do not know the business realities of Maddox Games nor do I wish to know, but in my book CloD is at the moment nothing more than an unfinished game engine which is about to be rewritten. It's not a full game, the offline part is too minimal and too incomplete to provide much offline entertainment and the online part is bugged with the crashes, the FMB is still "touchy" in a few areas (i.e. the weather controls) and even the Channel map has a few annoying bugs (i.e. the holes in the landscape). Right now CloD is - in my opinion - not more than an early Alpha. It runs but the content (apart from the aircraft) is not really there, yet.
So this is my impression of the state of things when you posted that certain "features" will be postponed until the sequel. Even for me, and I am not short of a €, this does a lot to increase the WTF? state of mind I'm finding myself in WRT CloD. Are you seriously expecting the customers just to shrug and swallow that they'll have to pay yet another full game price just to get features which were promised for Clod (some features which I personally regard as vital for any game like a decent campaign mode)? Are you really expecting us to shrug off the total omission of the Royal Navy?

My point is that switching full-throttle to the production of the sequel, given the way things are ATM, is indeed quite a slap into the face of customers who have bought the product in good faith, customers who were looking for a good representation of the Battle of Britain with all its phases.

best post on these forums for ages

[jg27_mc]

Originally Posted by luthier

...and we're doing that for free seven months after release.l.

The software was a complete mess at release (at a certain point it still is...): I have paid almost 50€ for a download, as a customer I wasn't expecting anything different... Well actually I was, never in my dreams I have thought CloD was going to be launched in such a state. After 7 months I have launcher crashes all the time, planes flying with no wings/tails, lack of AA and really poor performance/optimization specially for us, ATI users.

Originally Posted by luthier

That is however simply not possible with some features. In some cases that's a question of limited resources. We cannot make a new flyable for CoD because that means one less flyable for the sequel.

I can understand that... But looking at the recent past since CloD launch, only a prequel (paid of course) like the Battle of France would have made me understand MG way of running things... If we are talking of a ETO sequel, there's no logic whatsoever! (except financial... maybe).